Some Reasons Why...

This piece was entered as a comment on a post published below on this website. It is also here because it offers thoughts on important issues that still need to be discussed.

Please be clear that I chose not to "vote" because the information about the truth of the issues was not clear and was not presented in an "un-biased" manner. My conversation with one 2nd Opinion Caucus promotor was very interesting but may have been one-sided and possibly not entirely accurate. I turned to the blog links for that "party" but I did not feel comfortable with some of the comments posted by candidates as their "platforms". When I tried to mark up the ridiculous ballot -- choose half of a list against the other half of the list? Guided by instructions from one person who I liked but who was promoting other candidates who sounded as unprofessional as what that "party" was trying to stand for? So if I voted for the platforms that sounded functional and mature, how was I to fill the rest of the ballot? Look for endorsements by other local papers?

Further, it was clear that "campaign financing", even if it came from the candidates personal pockets, played a role in elevating the status of this election. Money talks. Yes, increased participation in theory good for democracy. But in the end I could not shake my suspicion that the pettiness that spills out on the pages of the Local as well as the vitriol of this blog was not going to be drastically improved by my participation in this election. But I am glad that I participated by at least trying to become informed about the issues. I wanted to vote but the information was not clear.

The photograph [the Maxinista poster] attached to (the Maxinista) main post is an example of negative advertising. It's an example of using the "media" to tear down a person personally--it's hostile and mean spirited. I have never met this woman. Maybe she is all that your blog says she is, but the truth of the reasons to vote for someone else is obscured by the hostility of this negative campaign. The only thing I know for sure about this woman is that she bothered to become involved in her community and look what happened to her--as a result of volunteering in her community, she was smeared, defamed in public. That is a message that discourages participation from other members of this community. I have no doubt that regular people are not always that qualified as "leaders" but this is not a government office. It's a "community" association.

I look forward to better, more clear, more accurate, perhaps more truthful information about Chestnut Hill and its concerns in the forthcoming issues of the Local now that the 2nd Opinion Caucus "party" has succeeded in its efforts to gain power in the CHCA.

And $55K is not a high salary. Do you expect the Local editors to earn minimum wage? What salary do you believe the editor-in-chief of a successful newspaper is supposed to earn? Should the editor pick up waitressing shifts in a local restaurant to supplement her income from the CHCA?

(Anonymous blogging is maddening, isn't it? You have no idea who I am...)